The Snapshot wrote:There is no way Bailey does not know Kunitz is there. In fact, you can argue that he is dropping his shoulder to initiate contact with Kunitz - and his stick movement, coming up from under to lift Kunitz's stick is proof that this was the case.

Kunitz just beat him to the punch in terms of initiating.

That call was made because Bailey was weak enough on his skates and dumb enough to be unprepared for the contact.

I'll accept a "it looked so bad we need to make a call" minor. Braydon Coburn would not agree with that call though.

Agree 100%. This was a play where both players were aware of what was about to go down. But, one was prepared better.

I expect a Kunitz suspension, for no other reason than that the NHL takes the result as a major factor in their determinations, which is absurd. In thinking back to the Islanders-Pens game a few years ago with 200+ PIM, Talbot(?) was ready to take a cheap shot that had it worked, would have resulted in a season long suspension, or perhaps longer. Because Max saw it coming, it was 2 minutes. Because Bailey went into the boards so akwardly, CK will pay a price.

pressure=9Pa wrote:I expect a Kunitz suspension, for no other reason than that the NHL takes the result as a major factor in their determinations, which is absurd. In thinking back to the Islanders-Pens game a few years ago with 200+ PIM, Talbot(?) was ready to take a cheap shot that had it worked, would have resulted in a season long suspension, or perhaps longer. Because Max saw it coming, it was 2 minutes. Because Bailey went into the boards so akwardly, CK will pay a price.

Beetle Bailey wasn't injured on the play. Didn't he even take additional shifts later in the game? (Not sure but iirc he did)

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

Bottom line the refs judgement in this case was flawed. Yes Bailey was checked but he initiated the contact. Kunitz could have been the one crashing into the boards. Kunitz did not "push" him into the boards. It was shoulder to shoulder contact, nobody was in a defenseless position.

The only thing that should be suspended are Baileys acting lessons. He's won an Emmy already with that performance.

Chris Kunitz wasn't given a boarding penalty on the play. He was given a checking from behind penalty.

43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

And now that I'm looking at the rules, how he got a game misconduct for it makes a lot more sense (within the context of the rulebook, anyway). According to rule 43.2, there is no provision for a minor penalty. If you get called for checking from behind, it's an automatic major. And furthermore, rule 43.5 states that "a game misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a major penalty is applied for checking from behind." So the both of those were a given as soon as the call was made. How Bailey acted after hitting the boards had nothing to do with it (on the ref's end, anyway). We'll just have to see how Shanahan calls it.

He made a couple clears in front on the PP that may have saved goals. A simple shove that sent Moulson flying and down to the ice. It's what we've been lacking.

Plus he actually saved a goal on an open net early in the game. It was the first real scoring chance in the game IIRC, and one of the islanders came down the left side, got a shot, another player had a rebound chance on the left side and then it popped out to Tavares right in the crease with an open net. Murray makes a great stick lift and gets him out of there or it is 1-0 early just after losing Sid. Who knows where the game goes from there.

bafcats wrote:Chris Kunitz wasn't given a boarding penalty on the play. He was given a checking from behind penalty.

43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

And now that I'm looking at the rules, how he got a game misconduct for it makes a lot more sense (within the context of the rulebook, anyway). According to rule 43.2, there is no provision for a minor penalty. If you get called for checking from behind, it's an automatic major. And furthermore, rule 43.5 states that "a game misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a major penalty is applied for checking from behind." So the both of those were a given as soon as the call was made. How Bailey acted after hitting the boards had nothing to do with it (on the ref's end, anyway). We'll just have to see how Shanahan calls it.

....thanks for posting the rule....obviously the wrong call here based on the rule "not aware of impending hit", if Bailey wasn't aware he was going to be hit why did he drop his soulder slightly and try the old shoulder down then up check to get leverage, if this is given anything other than a cursory look by the league I'll be shocked, this is a great example of results based officiating, which the NHL has mastered. Bailey basically took on more than he could handle in Kunitz in a dangerous part of ice.

Like Benz this morning railing about the legitimacy of the Kunitz call, where he keeps calling it boarding. I.e. how the heck can Pens fans believe the call wasn't warranted, and trying to compare it to the Malkin injury or the Coburn hit on Dupuis.

Hello, Benz: They didn't call boarding. They called checking from behind. Stop comparing apples to oranges.